Princess Margaret was the Queen’s younger sister. The two sisters shared everything together until their uncle abdicated and Elizabeth became heir to the throne.

When Elizabeth was crowned her sister Margaret was only 22. Beautiful, lively, with a model’s figure that had inherited nothing from Queen Victoria’s portly frame. Margaret had everything - except a real role to play. While Elizabeth had a mission, a throne and a husband all her sister had was her own circle. Privileged young aristocrats with time and money on their hands.

Naturally they enjoyed themselves and were free to do so. Back then the media was kept firmly in its place. Margaret and her friends were safe from nosy reporters and their private detectives. No paparazzi lurked and no editor dared to print Royal scandal stories. It was a bit like the JFK situation in the US. Everybody knew, nobody told. Rupert Murdock and his fat cheque book came later.

Eventually Margaret fell in love with Peter Townsend, an officer who had been her father’s equerry. That’s the Royal term for a general gofer. Unfortunately he was married – though about to be divorced and he was the innocent party. They both desperately wanted to get married.

But this was too soon after the abdication of Margaret’s uncle who was briefly King Edward 8th before he renounced the throne to marry Wallis Simpson, a divorcee. The British establishment could not bear the thought of another divorcee in the Royal family, so near the beginning of what they hoped would be a long, trouble free Monarchy.

Margaret was lied to

So Margaret was threatened and lied to. She was told that if she married Townsend she would have to give up her title, her money and live in exile forever. Margaret had always lived in luxury with servants constantly on hand, never giving a thought to money. 

The British establishment reasoned that she could not give all this up. She had seen what happened to her Uncle, banned for ever, living a sad life in exile. She would have to live on whatever Townsend earned.

They parted and Margaret was left to grieve. But the establishment had lied to her. The Queen, the Royal family and Margaret were deliberately misinformed. She would not have had to give up her title, she would not have been forced to live in exile – and she would have received a generous allowance.

What followed was tragic and predictable. Margaret married Anthony Armstrong Jones, a photographer who was never accepted into the Royal family although he was given a courtesy title. The marriage was not happy. There is a story that after one row he walked off leaving a note for her saying, “You look like a Jewish manicurist and I hate you.” Anti semitism is never far from the surface in aristocratic circles. 

After they divorced Margaret went through the motions of Royal duties but also enjoyed long holidays in the Caribbean on the island of Mustique. There she is alleged to have met a notorious London gangster by the name of John Bindon. He was a man who nature had been kind to. Bindon had an enormous penis and his favourite party trick was to hang 5 beer glasses on it. There is a story of Margaret and Bindon making love on the beach – and being photgraphed. The shot was supposed to have been placed in a bank vault – which was then raided. Press coverage of the bank raid was banned by government order, a D notice, which is usually reserved for matters of national security.

The establishment has many ways of managing affairs of heart and state, to its own advantage. Apparently the Queen did not discover the cruel way her sister was deceived until after Margaret died.   

The whole affair is a story Shakespeare would have enjoyed. 

Valentine’s Day should rather be a moment set aside to give care to our loved once, show love to the unloved, the poor, even to our enemies, the sick people, the prisoners and the likes. By this act of charity shown to these people we have gained bountifully than lavishing time, talent and treasure on unprofitable immoral acts.

Every good thing they say have a bitter side of it. I am not trying to spoil the D-day but at the same time not trying to praise those who promote amorous and sensual life without envisaging its implication to the moral lives of people. Now coming to the other side of it, children and mostly youths are being affected here; of course they are the major victims due to the erroneous views by some groups to acclaim Lover’s day.

In some cities of the world, the lover’s day is being coined a sexual jamboree; a day which law permits for sexual immorality rather than seeking for a best way to curb the menace. In fact, some see immorality as constitutional legal and thus celebrate it the best way they could to gratify the body. In a situation like this, immorality is highly propagated and not putting in control.

Hotels, restaurants and party houses are big time sponsors of these acts. They go extra length via the media to re-twit the minds of the young concerning love which are but virtual. No doubt this season is one big time when promiscuity is on high record. The future leaders of our time learn more of licentious and blind acts capable of tarnishing their images in the near future.

The media as one of the chief sponsors are not left behind. They have indeed contributed a larger quota via dissemination of such misguided information published on dailies. Government on the other side have done little to take it as a major role to educate the minds of young people and then the religious bodies (Christians) have also done little on their own part.    

It would be rather late to do something serious now to re-educate the minds of people concerning Lover’s Day but I believe there is still hope for the future and thus every sensitized leader in the family and the society at large should rise up and face this challenge. It is a wake up call.

Social Issues are one major sector of concern for people all over the world. This sector is mainly dealt by social scientists. But, this is the most diverse sector in the world and everyone has the role to play. I have tried to cover this sector both broadly and deeply over the past few years. The experience taught me its vastness and made me realize that it is an ocean which cannot be captured by me alone.

Cause, Effect and Solution

Any issue can be segregated in three components of cause, effect and solution. I have written a few articles which try to find or address the cause of the issue. Some of the areas in which causes were explored were education, relationships, politics, women exploitation, future of man, normal human tendency, perception, unethical science and discrimination. Effects have been explored for issues related to cheating, feminism, punishment and research. Solutions for the issues can be found in the policy, economics, science, etc. Some of the areas dealt with scientific solution were food scarcity, crime against women and cheating. Some of the other solutions addressed by me were in the areas of relationships, people understanding, slums, policy study, conflict and interaction.

This limited coverage can provide the people with significant insights into the different aspects of the social issues and also provide sufficient examples in dealing with those different aspects. Since, social issues are part and parcel of life and one has to find a way to deal with them.

I look at those who run for office and see who and what they really represent. Some look out for their friends and those with power and those who can give back in return. Many politicians have personal and business connections with big money. Who do you think has their ear after they are elected? I am tired of the attitude; you want a bridge to nowhere? We can do that. You want to drill oil in the Indian’s back yard? We can do that too. You want to have more smoke stacks? We can do that, it might cost you more? Politics and political history being what it is, we will always have some influence peddling, some negotiations of give and take with representation with local and business leaning, but we accept that when justice and equality are also present. We must get the personal agendas and hidden graft out of our bills and riders which has gone too far in recent politics. We have a divided nation and a divided congress.

We live in the greatest country in the world, not because of those who have led us over the past thirty years, but because of our founding principles, our constitution, the rule of law spiced with consideration, trust, fairness, decency, family, and for the good of all, by a government established for the people (not just the rich and powerful) by the people, (farmers, hunters and workers) and of the people, (not just those with influential connections.) We need leaders who have made jobs for people and not destroyed them. We need leaders who work to protect our American way of life.

When I look at any politician running for office, I look at his family, his work history, his past offerings and what he has accomplished as a citizen and not as a tyrant in either business or politics. I look for a person who understands me and what I have to go through to make my way through life. I want leaders that look at the bottom ninety percent of the citizenry first and the top ten percent second. It goes without saying that government support of the top ten percent often is passed down to the bottom ninety percent.

I don’t vote for a person because of how much tax he pays, how big his house is or how many cars he has. I don’t care if he has one vacation home or five, that might be an indication of how hard he works and what he can offer in the future. I want to know what he has done for America, you and me.

Rather, I would want to see how a politician made his money to buy his vacation homes, fill his political war chest, etc. There must be a reason why big business will give millions and millions to campaigns to get a certain person in office, a selfish reason I would judge. How can the ten dollars from a widow or a disabled vet compete with that? I don’t begrudge big business, we need them, we need more of them, but I like to see the businessman that sells his vacation home during a slow down or economic depression so that his workers won’t be laid off. Yes, we have business owners that do that. I would rather see a businessman pay his idle workers and help them find other jobs until business picks up again. I like the business that offers health insurance, tuition aid and family counseling and a host of other things instead of using company money to attract influential friends, lobbyists, and to offer huge sums to campaign blocks. And just as I like the business that takes care of the worker, I like the politician that uses his efforts for all the people. Why in the world would a business dealing with the government want a certain politician in office anyway? Isn’t that overpowering the small voter? Campaigns should be run on merit instead of money. Does it take money and advertising at the rate we see today to put an honest and dedicated man into office?  We should elect our leaders by a more reliable method such as past experience and dedication to the American way of life, not just for a few Americans, but for all Americans. It is my humble opinion that our early founders believed in a power greater than eternity itself, I can respect that and really appreciate a leader who feels that he is not that power, but yields to a  force greater than any one of us. We should have the right to believe the way we want to and that includes those who believe differently than I do. Each individual must council his own mind.

Deciding who will run your government should not be taken casually, but with great passion. The leader(s) you vote for should not be a cut and dried decision because of the party our grandparents voted for. But we should choose on the merits of the party and that of those who will lead that party today. Party principles are very important, and leaders of both parties have been proven to be good for America. We can only hope that America has informed, rational, and interested voters who understands that money and advertising is trying to buy the American way of life. Party politics must be considered in our decision making process.  We have such an impasse when our represented leaders stand in the way of progress just to make the other party look bad. Winning an argument is not worth destroying our government.

Dr Robert E McGinnis  –  Author for over thrity years.Open the door to your mind.

Throughout my voting history I have voted equally as much for one party as I have the other. My voting history is a split ticket from the top to the bottom. I do my best to vote for the cause and not the glamor, for the man and not the promise. Think about it, who does your candidate really represent?

Her Family

Her father was a miner who was deeply religious and a fierce disaplinarian. When aged 8 the family moved to Murton and at school Mary Anne found it difficult to make friends. Not long after the move her father had a fatal accident, falling 46 metres to his death down a mione shaft at Murton Colliery.

In 1843 Mary Ann’s widowed mother Margaret married George Stott, but Mary did not get on well with George. So at aged 16 Mary moved on and became a nurse at the Edwarad Potters Home in South Hetton, however she returned to her mother’s home three years later at aged 19 years.

In 1852 at aged 20 Mary Ann married William Mowbray at Newcastle Upon Tyne register office and the couple moved to Plymouth. Mary Ann gave William five children but they all died of gastric fever, the couple then returned to the North East of England and Mary ann fave birth to three more children who all died.

William was a foreman at the South Hetton Colliery and then a fireman on board a staem ship. In 1865 William died of an “intestinal disorder.” In those days insurance was just beginning to emerge and William had taken out some life assurance with the British and Prudential Company and Mary ann received £35.00 from the insurance company, which in those days was the equivalent of half a years wages.

Husband No 2

After William’s death Mary ann moved to Seaton Harbour in County Durham and struck up a friendship with a Joseph Nattrao. When she found out he was engaged and after he married she moved on and at this time one of two remaining children died, leaving her with one child Isabella, Isabella was sent back to her maternal granmother to care for her. Mary Ann then struck up a friendship with a George Ward nad they married in Monkwearmouth on the 28th August 1865, he died of “intestinal problems” his GP had said that he was very ill, but that he had been surprised by the speed in which he died. Another insurance payout to Mary Ann follows.

Death followed Mary Ann whereever she went

James Robinson was to be husband number three, he was a shipwright in Pallion, Sunderland, his wife had recently died and Mary Ann became his housekeeper initially and he too lost a child through gastric fever. James got Mary Ann pregnant again. Mary Ann returned home to help her mother who had become ill and within nine days her mother too had died aged 54 years. She took her only remaining daughter Isabella to live with James Robinson, however, she died after developing chronic stomach pains along with two of the Robinson family.

Mary Ann married Robinson on the 11th August 1867 and they had a child called Mary Isabella but she died of chronic stomach pain, along with two more of his children. Robinson suspected Mary Ann by this stage, he found she had incurred some debts amounting to £60 and that she had stolen £50 from him and he would not tolerate her insistance on him having life assurance. As a result Mary Ann was given her marching orders by Robinson.

From here on the pattern continued to date there have been multiple child deaths, which in Victorian times was not uncommon, due to the squalor that the poor lived in during those times. However, a pattern had emerged and all of Mary’s husbands and children were dying of the same ailments. In addition it was taer claimed in court that Mary Ann had also murdered her mother and also her friend Margaret who introduced her to her brother Frederick who was alfready married, so Mary ann commited bigamy when she married him on the 17th September 1870. Margaret too went the same way and died in March 1870 with unconfirmed stomach disorder.

Mary Ann then married Frederick bigamously in September 1871 and they raised a son Robert that same year, Frederick however died in the December of that year and Mary ann once again was the benificiary of the insurance money.

Joseph Nattrass Mary Ann’s long term lover became her lodger and they rekindled their relationship, however, as soon as he had changed his will infavour of Mary Ann, he too met with gastric illines and died. Mary Ann then wanted to form a relationsip with a John Quick Manning who she was nursing after smallpox, but Charles Edward Cotton her seven year old step son stood in her way. Mary ann tried to get Charles committed to the workhouse but the request was rejected. As a result it is alleged that Mary Ann committed her final act of muder, a murder that was to unraval her muderess trail. The coroner finally became suspicious and Mary Ann was arrested.

Method of Murder

It was claimed in court that the murders were committed by use of arsonic. The reasons used by villains are that it dissolves in hot water, so can easily be administered in a cup of tea and in those times was easily accessable, eg in solt soap or in wallpaper.

Detection

Was very late in the case of Mary Ann, mainly because of the very austere times, the poverty and deprevation, the overload of doctors and the lack of accurate records, along with a police force that was only just beginning to emerge. Mary Ann herself was a reason for the cover up, she was plausible, she played the grieving mother or widow to perfection and of course child death was more common place in those days.

It is argued that in these modern 21st century times that we live in Mary Ann would not of been convicted in 21st century Britain, however, you could argue too that the methodology used by Mary Ann, namely arsenic poisoning and the level of deception in modern times would not have gone unchecked and that it would have been very difficult if not impossible for her to commit an identical crime today.

Mary Ann was viewed by some as a “kindly old lady,” from some distant past, but when you read the records of the deaths, particularly the lover Nattrass, he was witnessed suffering a horrific death, death certainly followed Mary Ann around and at her trial a jury found her guilty and she was executed by hanging on March 24th 1873.

Acknowledgements

Wikipedia

The Sunday Mail, Review

Website www.maryanncotton.co.uk

Writing Womens Listing.blogspot.com

Seem approachable. “Approachable” doesn’t mean you have to wear the most expensive clothes or turn your purse label outward so everyone can see it; instead, it means seeming clean, friendly and down-to-earth. Most people value confidence and a sense of humor over any other trait – just don’t let that confidence come across as cockiness.

Mind your reputation. If you’re at a bar, go easy on the drinks if you want to meet someone in particular, and don’t let your apartment become a swinging door for dates if you want to meet your neighbor across the hall. Even in the short term, your reputation precedes you and may affect how others perceive you.

Read body language. From across the room or when you pass someone while walking, you can tell their general feelings toward you. If their stance is open, feet pointing toward you, and if they’re looking at you constantly, making eye contact with you, these are all good signs, but they’re not all-inclusive. If you see one positive body language sign, look for others to confirm that this person might be interested in talking to you more.

Notice traits about that person. You’ll have to talk to this person eventually, and you’ll need something to talk about. Observe what that person is drinking, what they’ve been interested in, what you see them doing and how you see them reacting to situations they’re in. These will give you topic gems to be able to talk to them later.

Initiate a conversation. Don’t go for clichés, such as “What’s a girl like you doing in a place like this?” and “Nice weather we’re having, huh?” as these are generally closed-ended questions. Instead, say something clever and/or complimentary but not cheesy. In other words, don’t watch romantic comedies to inspire you for what to say.

Be cool. Above all, don’t put too much pressure on yourself or the other person to respond. Chemistry is something that naturally happens, and if you’re sweating like crazy or at a loss of something to say because you’re so nervous, the other person will never get to know the real you. Don’t expect every flirting attempt to turn into marriage; instead, look at it as more practice for better flirting.

Be yourself. Having said that about minding your reputation, this does not include squelching your personality or accent and worrying your hair is not the right color or your laugh is too loud. These are all things that make you uniquely you, and you should never hide them from anyone.

Open up – but not too much. As you continue to talk with this person, he or she will reveal clues about their lifestyle and preferences, and you should reciprocate, gradually. This is not the time to talk about exes, negativity or even politics, and you’ll want to leave a little mystery so they want to hear more.

Show common courtesy. Show this person your complete attention, but don’t stare. Avoid checking your phone or any televisions around for the game score. Laugh at their jokes, listen to what they say and enjoy getting to know this person.

Get next steps. Just like a job interview, there’s a natural ending to flirting, typically because the other person has something else planned. If you feel comfortable, get the person’s phone number or email address, and if you’re feeling the conversation has gone particularly well, arrange a date with that person. If the person isn’t interested, it’s okay – there are plenty of people to flirt with. Be polite either way, and if you make a connection, congratulations. That wasn’t that hard, was it?

The cultural diversity is an interesting point of debate as we could see the positive effect of it all in our society. There are no ifs and buts about the fact that it has contributed immensely in our great society but if the truth is told there is no good without evil.

The presence of the different ethnicity in our culture such as the Africans, Hispanic, and the Asians alike has enhanced the economy of our great nation for instance, but digging deep into the economical contributions one would not fail to notice that it also comes with flaws. The contribution is great, also is the challenges of segregation amongst the micro communities and alike. The point that I am trying to buttress is the need for self as it pertains to man and their survival.

It only takes a culture of no much affection for one another to go outside his race or culture for warmth, for this I mean the need for every culture to look out for their brothers and sisters first before the other. This cultural diversity actually brings resentment, hate, discrimination, rivalry and the likes in our great society. One would not over look the fact that there is a cultural infiltrations as well amongst our society in terms of gang banging and others, that one culture feels neglected and thereby does what ever it takes to meet his or her need, even though it means stepping in another’s toes. The point that is been made here is that no matter how great the cultural diversity may seem they also have some set backs, A TYPICAL EXAMPLE could be seen in our work environment, not to be too specific, I would employ each and everyone of us to do the research on our own and get the feedback in terms of your immediate communities such as your church, club, neighbors, workplace and importantly the government arena. The truth is obvious as one would not fail to notice the sectionalism in the above mentioned entities as a result of “me- me- me” or “my-my-my” The truth they say is bitter but one had to tell it. How do you feel if you are Hispanic who is been by passed in terms of job opportunity, or an African or an Asian because the recruiter is looking out for his/ her person first, instead of the best qualified? Secondly, how would you react if you work in an environment whereby there is a section of a particular culture that are more than the other culture and there is always favoritism amongst them, and the other is treated as a step child or a second class citizen as compared to that of the ancient days or the primitive eras in most of our cultures? The truth is that such an experience brings contentment, anger, rage and in most cases deadly revenge because no one wants to be treated less than the other. Do you remember the saying that goes that all men are equal, or is that just a myth? I truly believe that all men are equal whether black or white, Hispanic or Asian, Step or no step child we all want to be seen as an integral part of our community because no one want to be seen as a second class individual, and he/she may stomach such but for a while, and when he/she could not take it anymore, the result most times leads to a cantankerous individual or group of people who are mainly the minority and eventually results to chaotic society. Who as an individual wants to be over looked? The society is great without the cultural diversity if only we all play our roles and do the right things, But you and I know that that is not the case as we tend to most times lie and cheat, covering up for our selves, friends, and families and most times a lot of eye services and expected to play by the rules of the majority, not realizing that the majority could be wrong, their actions not withstanding as long as you are amongst the majority that any and everything goes. It only takes the very few, the bold and the brave to speak against such an unacceptable behavior in our society, that’s why there was a popular song that goes “sometimes everybody plays the fool and that there is no exception to the rule” which I very much believe; So fort and so on. That said; I would bring our attention to the need to monitor and regulate such a cultural diversity in our nation, by selecting or appointing an independent force to regulate the on seeming sectional favoritism in our society, especially around our immediate environment such as Churches, which should not be but my dear readers it exits amongst the Christians too, what a shame? hopefully not within the true believers, Amongst the work places , importantly therefore; amongst our government agencies, with an exception of our current president Obama who indiscriminately appointed his cabinet without resentment. What an awesome quality of a leadership! Therefore for a peaceful co-existence of cultural diversity and equal opportunities in all branches of life that is there within should be regulated by a bold, God fearing, a well rounded individual groups of people to police our society, to get rid of such unhealthy favoritism in our Great Nation as one group of individuals are treated better than others based on who is on the throne. This is just a message from one of the great thinkers. You do the math. No culture, no matter what should be more in any section of our government agencies and if there is any such the independent body should investigate, to prevent my- my- my or me- me- me.

Thanks.      

Malcolm X (1925–1965), African American radical activist. Malcolm Little was born on May 19, 1925, the son of Louise and Earl Little of Omaha, Nebraska. Louise Little was a mulatto born in Grenada in the British West Indies, and Earl Little, a six-foot, very dark man from Reynolds, Ga., was a Baptist minister and organizer for Marcus Garvey’s Universal Negro Improvement Association. Louise, his second wife, bore six children: Wildred, Hilda, Philbert, Malcolm, Yvonne, and Reginald. Earl Little also had three children by a first wife: Ella, Earl, and Mary. Little had migrated with his family from Philadelphia to the Midwest, first to Milwaukee, then Omaha, and finally to East Lansing, Mich.

Image via Wikipedia

In 1929 the family house was burned down, allegedly by the Black Legion Society, a white supremacist group. After Earl Little died in 1931 in a streetcar accident, Malcolm’s mother raised the children as best she could, but she eventually had a mental breakdown and entered an insane asylum. The siblings were dispersed to other families. Malcolm lived with a foster family before moving to Roxbury, Mass., in 1941 to live with a half sister, Ella Collins.

A few months after his arrival in Roxbury, a predominantly black section of Boston, Malcolm dropped out of school (having completed eighth grade) and took a job as a shoeshine boy at the Roseland Ballroom in Boston’s Back Bay section. A career as a hustler seemed a more tempting option, and he was soon peddling narcotics. Roxbury proved to be too small for him, and in 1942 he took a job as a railroad dining-car porter, working out of Roxbury and Harlem. Settling in Harlem, he became involved in criminal activities (robbery, prostitution, and narcotics).

Malcolm soon learned to survive in hustler society, which was composed of fleeting social arrangements constantly threatened by internal wars that rendered every man potentially every other man’s enemy. He lived up to his nickname—”Red” (in the more urban-conscious New York, “Detroit Red”); red-headed black men to the superstitious were literally sons of the devil, quick-tempered and capable of cruel violence. After a year in Harlem Malcolm was officially initiated into hustler society. He returned to Boston in 1945, after a falling out with another hustler, and continued a life of crime, forming his own house-robbing gang. Arrested for robbery in February 1946, he was convicted and sentenced to the Charlestown, Mass., prison for seven years.

While in prison, Malcolm became a follower of Elijah Muhammad, the leader of a small, urban prophet-cult, the Nation of Islam, with branches in Detroit, Chicago, and New York. Malcolm and Elijah Muhammad corresponded by mail. Malcolm’s brother Reginald and half sister Ella, visiting him in prison, urged him to join Muhammad’s cult, and while still in prison he did. He discarded his “slave name,” Little, and was assigned the new name “X”. His conversion led him to greater literacy, immersion in the Qur’ān (Koran), strict adherence to the Nation of Islam’s dietary laws, and what was to be a lifelong interest in ideas. After his parole in 1952, Malcolm X undertook organizational work for the Nation of Islam under the guidance of Elijah Muhammad. Malcolm founded mosques in Boston, Philadelphia, Harlem, and elsewhere and was credited with the national expansion of the movement, the membership of which evidently reached approximately 30,000 by 1963.

Malcolm X came to broad public notice as a result of a July 13–17, 1959, television special with Mike Wallace called The Hate That Hate Produced, which told the story of Malcolm X’s emergence as one of the most important leaders of the Nation of Islam. The program also brought the Nation of Islam (also known as the Black Muslim movement) to the attention of a wide American public. Further, Malcolm X’s thought was expressed in speeches, a newspaper column (first in Harlem’s Amsterdam News and later moved to the Los Angeles Herald Dispatch), and in radio and television interviews. In addition, he helped found the Black Muslim newspaper Muhammad Speaks.

Partly because of tensions within the Black Muslim movement, Malcolm became critical of Elijah Muhammad. He was eventually “silenced” for 90 days after commenting on the assassination of Pres. John F. Kennedy with the phrase “chickens come home to roost.” But before his silence was lifted, Malcolm X left the Nation of Islam to form the Muslim Mosque, Inc. (March 1964) and the Organization of Afro-American Unity (June 1964). He began to articulate a more secular black nationalism, arguing that blacks should control the politics within their own community and, through his speeches, encouraging his followers to use the ballot to effect change.

At the height of his powers Malcolm X was one of black America’s most compelling voices. He had enormous influence among black youth and in progressive intellectual circles. He traveled widely in Europe and Africa, modeling his Organization of Afro-American Unity after the Organization of African Unity. He saw the black American struggle partially as an extension of the effort of Third World nations for human rights. He threatened to bring the United States’s racial problem before the United Nations as part of a campaign for human rights.

Malcolm X described the next stage of his personal evolution in a speech entitled “The Bullet or the Ballot,” in which he attempted to stake out a role for himself in the civil rights movement. He thus moved closer to Martin Luther King, Jr., by accepting the agenda of the civil rights movement. With other black nationalists, he added “black is beautiful” themes to his rhetoric. He continued to stress self-reliance, one of the core values of the Nation of Islam.

Malcolm X went on his obligatory (for orthodox Muslims) pilgrimage to Mecca in 1964 and there began to consider changing his views toward integration. He never fully completed the transition (despite the popular notion, reaffirmed in Spike Lee’s 1992 film Malcolm X, that he did). Afterward he was, if anything, more ambiguous about the outcome of the race struggle in the United States, and he left open the possibility that some whites could contribute to the struggle. After the pilgrimage he adopted the name El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz.

The Queens, N.Y., home Malcolm X shared with his wife, Betty (whom he had married in January 1958) and his six children was firebombed in early February 1965. Malcolm was assassinated on Feb. 21, 1965, as he addressed 400 supporters at the Audubon Ballroom in the Washington Heights section of upper Manhattan. The reason for the assassination has not yet been definitely established. Three men were convicted in March 1966 of first degree murder: Talmadge Hayer, Norman 3X Butler, and Thomas 15X Johnson.

The phenomenon of Malcolm X is not unique in modern (or premodern) society. His career was quite similar to that of other societal rebels and bandits who have appeared, usually in preindustrial societies and especially in prepolitical situations. Such figures usually appear in millenarian movements seeking to transform groups or social systems by means of radical religious rules and the like. The social historians Eric Hobsbawm (writing about Europe) and Christopher Hill (writing about 17th-century revolutionary England) have described these personalities and movements in the books Primitive Rebels and The World Turned Upside Down, respectively. The rebel usually has a criminal background and has been imprisoned (although it is usually unclear whether the imprisonment was deserved or a miscarriage of justice). There is a conversion, gradual or through a revelatory experience. The figure’s state of illiteracy is transformed into the ability to produce compelling rhetoric—in prose or poetry, and sometimes even in elegant literature (as with John Bunyan). The life story has a heroic element and aspects of gallantry.

The early stories circulated about Malcolm X embody this pattern. For example, Malcolm is said to have rescued a lady in a Boston bar from the police, apparently whisking her away before the police could arrest her, putting her in a taxicab, paying the fare, and sending her home. Word of this rescue spread throughout the black community (and among the police as well). Indeed, hustler societies, such as those from which Malcolm emerged, were based on “heroic” codes of this kind. It may be contended (as scholar Prudence Steiner has suggested) that the reputation of Malcolm X has much to do with epic sagas and myths recording how men and women transform societies through heroic action, at times for good and at other times for ill.

In early 2003 it was announced that Malcolm X’s family had deposited a large collection of his papers, including letters, drafts of his speeches, photographs, and five journal notebooks, at the New York Public Library’s Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture. Produced over some two decades of Malcolm X’s life, the collection was expected to reveal much about his intellectual and political development. Although it remains to be seen how Malcolm’s contribution will, in the end, be evaluated, certainly we know for the moment that his life story is of compelling interest to Americans of all colors.

Bruce J. Schulman, in the book The Seventies, argues that the era of the 1970’s began in 1968 and lasted until the year 1984.  Schulman believes during this time period the United States was facing some of its most drastic changes in its history that still affect the U.S today. These changes effected race, entertainment, gender, and the economy. Schulman writes the book in the order the events happened reflecting back when needed to support his argument.

            Schulman states “If one date delineated the end of the Sixties and the beginning of the Seventies, it was the year 1968” (1). Schulman argues the last days of the Sixties were at the end of World War II. The era of the seventies began with changes which would “define the term for contemporary American life” (1). Schulman argues that the era of the Seventies ended in 1984, as he stated “1984 marked a turning point, the end of the long 1970’s” (254).The economy had recovered, disco and punk had disappeared, and blockbuster had dominated Hollywood. All the changes he believed led to the official end of the seventies although he believes many of the changes made during the seventies still live on today.

             According to Schulman racism in the seventies became almost nonexistent. A television show called the “The Jeffersons signaled real racial progress” (53). The show presented a middle class family in a white neighborhood. This family did not face any racism. There was also an interracial couple who “kissed passionately on the screen” (53). According to Schulman, “black students flooded into the nation’s colleges and universities” (54).  African Americans were not the only race that was gradually becoming more accepted. Asian and Latin Americans moved to the U.S. and were accepted into society. Schulman states that “Affirmative action was now supposed to promote and celebrate differences rather than eliminate distinctions. Schulman supports this idea by explaining these laws and public policies: “the Office of Federal Contract Compliance … [required] proportional representation of minorities in construction employment.  The OFCC subsequently extended the rule to all federal contracts and added employment requirements for women. … the office of Civil Rights in the Department of Health, Education and Welfare issued requirements for bilingual education for students whose native language was not English” (69) Schulman mentions other laws not mention above to accurately support his idea.

            Schulman describes the seventies with a large variety of music. This included the white’s rock and roll, the African Americans rap, and the interracial disco. Schulman believed the music served many different purposes; whether to make a political statement like “Feels Like I’m Fixin to Die Rag” or to defend what you believe in such as “Sweet Home Alabama”, or simply just to pull different people together as disco music seemed to do (73). Many seventies bands went to drastic measures to gain the attention of viewers. Schulman states, “Kiss painted their faces and dressed in platform shoes and shiny spandex pants; the groups concerts featured smoke machines, rockets, smoke bombs, and levitating drum sets… Alice Cooper’s shows featured… live chickens tossed into the audience, mock executions in fake electric chairs, decapitations of dolls” (151). Schulman believes American punk reflected a working-class aesthetic and prompted young adults to develop a rebellious attitude. Schulman makes it clear of how all entertainment of the seventies influenced and affected America’s future.

            According to Schulman feminism grew drastically in the seventies. Groups such as the National Women’s Political Caucus wanted more women to hold political offices. Schulman notes the in 1968 only 13% of the seats at the democratic convention were women, but by 1972 40% were women (166). As noted by Schulman, “Cultural feminism pointed not toward mere equality but toward a feminist reconstruction of American society based on gender differences” (172). Some women began to believe that men and women are different because of the way they were raised.  The spread of feminism did not only affect women but it affected men also. Schulman defends this by stating “men had to face new social conditions: renegotiating family roles at home and confronting women in the workplace, the political arena, the club, and the classroom” (177). Men began to become more sensitive and no longer having to live up to what society had previously expected a man to be.

            According to Schulman the before the seventies the economy had been at its best. Now after facing such a long war in Vietnam, the value of the dollar had dropped (7). Schulman supports this by saying the seventies would grapple with the problems of stagflation- the crippling coupling of high rates of inflation and economic stagflation, the seemingly impossible combination of rising prices with high unemployment, slow growth, and declining increases in productivity” (8) Jimmy Carter became president during a major economic crisis.  Schulman notes that “Carter had entered the White House with addition commitments to… deregulation, energy conservation, minimum wage increases, national health insurance- that cross-cut his basic objectives to restrain inflation and prevent recession” (128). The economy began to improve; real per capita income rose, and unemployment dropped. In efforts to increase unemployment more, Carter made small tax reductions, a public service jobs program, increased spending for public works, and a fifty dollar rebate to every taxpayer. Schulman notes that only a few months after these changes “Carter withdrew the proposed fifty-dollar rebate” (130). Carter’s attempt to improve the economy was a fail in the end. Schulman helps show this by stating a quote by Ronald Reagan: “Are you better off than you were four years ago? Is it easier for you to go and buy things in stores than it was four years ago? Is there more or less unemployment? (142)” Reagan was elected to presidency. The election of Reagan gradually helped the economy throughout the rest of the seventies era.

            Bruce J. Schulman’s book The Seventies: The Great Shift in American Culture, society, and politics, not only clearly describes the major events of the seventies but also describes small events and explains how each effect the era and America’s future. Schulman gives supporting details for each point he makes, making sure to not only look at one side but both sides of the argument. He clearly defines how the changes in this era dramatically influenced America’s future.

Work Cited

Schulman, Bruce J. The Seventies: the Great Shift in American Culture, Society, and Politics.      

New York: Free, 2001. Print.   

Sometimes I’m surprised when my college friends from smaller towns than the Springs say something like, “We used to have a Taco Bell, but then it closed down.” A Taco Bell. “A” Taco Bell. As if only having one isn’t itself a tragedy in light of the dozens littering Colorado Springs.

I think that’s part of why “The Disappeared” disturbed me so much last week. That insinuation that there’s some sort of deep, festering truth embedded in American culture from which I remain isolated after having grown in such a suburban area, venturing out just to nearby states like Texas or Oklahoma.

Space exploration is exciting stuff and the sea does have its astounding depth, but it’s like there are these vast reaches of unexplored territory within our nation’s borders. Though a “nation,” to be more accurate, is defined as a group of people with a shared culture and history. I think that’s where the true mystery lies. How different am I from someone in New York? Are they going to beat me up for watching My Little Pony? Do we take for granted all those assumed commonalities “LOL, TRAFFIC IS ANNOYING AND EVERYONE THINKS SO!”, exaggerate their reach? Are there such things a Bostonian experiences on a daily basis that I just wouldn’t “get”? Why the fuck doesn’t Colorado have its own signature food like the Philly cheesesteak? How come wrestling promotions shut down left and right here but thrive in the Northeast?

I have inklings of information for all those questions, but not enough to fully satisfy myself. That’s why I can’t settle down. That’s why so much rides on being successful as a writer and pursuing professional wrestling. I won’t go through life wondering what a genuine Philly cheesesteak tastes like.